Sunday, 10 July 2011

Atheism is, as the name suggests, the denial or
rejection of theism. For present purposes I will take theism to be the belief
that the God of sophisticated monotheistic religions exists. The God of
monotheism is an entity that plays a role in explaining certain features of the
observable world e.g., the existence of the physical universe, why the universe
is ordered rather than chaotic, why humans exist.[1]

The standard formulation of atheism comes in two varieties
depending on whether it stresses the affirmation of the non-existence of God or
the denial or rejection of the existence of God.

The entry on atheism in the Rutledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy begins with the stress on the affirmation of the non-existence of
God.

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of
God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.

However, sometimes atheism is characterized in terms of
the proposition that is rejected. For instance, the American Rutledge
Encyclopedia entry on atheism defines atheism in terms of the rejection of
belief in God, or someone who thinks that the proposition “God exists”
expresses a false state of affairs.

Someone may reject the claim that God exists on grounds
that it is incoherent, and contains logical contradictions, e.g., they may
reject the claim that God is three persons in one, because it is part of our
concept of a person that no person can be identical with any other person, and
so it is incoherent to claim that God is identical to three person (or person
like entities). Similarly they may reject the claim that God is perfect when
coupled with the claim that God needs to be worshipped since a need suggests a
lack of something whilst perfection suggests that the entity is lacking in
nothing. Hence someone may reject the
claim that God exists when talking about the typical characterization of the
God of monotheism. In rejecting this claim they are claiming that the
proposition expressed by “God exists” is false or cannot be true.[2]

Atheists may also reject the claim that God exists indirectly,
by embracing the attitude of naturalism[3] that is
reflected in the current scientific world view - the view that events in the
natural world have natural explanations, and that supernatural explanations
have no room to play in explaining the physical universe. Science has not
always adopted the attitude of naturalism. In the past supernatural causes were
accepted as playing a role in the observable world e.g. the motion of the
planets and there is no essential feature of science that makes it adopt the attitude
of naturalism. It has adopted this attitude because of the past success of natural
causes and the failure of supernatural causes in explaining features of the observable
world.

Since the God of monotheism is an entity that plays a
role in explaining certain features of the observable world e.g., the existence
of the physical universe, why the universe is ordered rather than chaotic, why
humans exist, (as well as the more outrageous claims such as atheists are responsible
for global warming) then someone who adopted the attitude that such events were
explained by natural rather than supernatural causes would be indirectly
rejecting the existence of the God of monotheism. However even though someone
who adopted the attitude of naturalism would believe that all natural events
have a natural explanation they may not draw the conclusion that God does not
exist if they do not see the connections between such beliefs.

The person who believes that the events in the
observable world will have a natural explanation rather than a supernatural
explanation but fails to draw the conclusion that the God of monotheistic
religions does not exist is like someone who believes that all men are animals,
and all animals are mortal, but does not draw the conclusion that all men are
mortal.

With the above qualifications in mind, we get something
very close to the starting definition:

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of
God, or any view which entails the non-existence of God or gods. It proposes
positive belief, rather than mere suspension of disbelief.

Agnosticism – Lack of knowledge.

Atheism is distinct from agnosticism although the two
overlap. Agnosticism is the view that denotes lack of knowledge on the
existence of God (or more widely on any topic), in contrast with Gnosticism,
which denotes knowledge of God. It is often coupled with the distinct view that,
since God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, the rational position to
take on this topic is simply non-belief, or the suspension of judgment.
Agnosticism has traditionally been used to mark a midway point between atheism
and theism, which gives the following table.

4 Agnostic Atheist: Believes that God does not
exist but does not know God does not exist.

5 Gnostic Atheist: Believes that God does not
exist and claims to know that God does not exist.

Atheism as Non-Belief.

However, there is a widespread popular use of 'atheism'
that exists amongst many (if not most) atheists that defines atheism as simply
the lack of belief in God. This view is
so widespread that it may now be the dominant view in popular culture. As a
contributor for The Guardian, Peter Thompson writes that atheism,

…as atheists are keen to point out,
says nothing about the atheist's beliefs. It is simply the absence of a belief
in something and does not constitute a belief in its own right.

This view has its own intellectual history going
back to the 1800’s. It is shared by some philosophers who have written on
atheism, such as Michael Martin. On this view, the difference between atheism
and agnosticism is not in terms of lack of belief, since both views share that
characteristic. Instead it has been proposed by J.C.C.Smart that if someone estimates the
various probabilities of theism being true, on the evidence available to him,
then one can rank theism and atheism depending on how likely they think it is
that God exists or does not exist.

On this view, we have the following categories, where
more than lack of belief is required in order to be an atheist, the person must
also think that, on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that God
exists.

2 Agnostic Theism: Believes that God exists, thinks it
highly likely, but is not certain.

3 Agnostic Simpliciter: Neither believes nor
disbelieves, and takes it as equally likely that God exists or does not.

4 Agnostic Atheist: Is skeptical that
God exists, thinks it highly unlikely that God exists, but is not certain.

5 Gnostic
Atheist
Is skeptical that God exists, is certain that God does not exist – probability of
0.

Notably in the above definitions of atheism the
requirement of believing that God does not exist is absent. From the above we can see
that atheism includes both definitions.

1: The belief that God doe not exist (or what
entails this).

2: The lack of belief in God.

The first claim has been called “positive atheism” or
“strong atheism”, and the second has been called “negative atheism” or “weak
atheism”. The first of the above claims is the stronger of the two, since it
entails the latter. That is to say, if you believe that there are no gods, you
should also lack a belief in any god; otherwise you will have contradictory
beliefs. The second does not entail having any belief about the non-existence
of gods.

This second view is probably best not construed as
a claim that cats, dogs, and infants are atheists, or that those completely
ignorant of religion are atheists even though these creatures lack the belief
in God. This is because such creatures are not making any judgment about the
probability of whether God exists or not and this latter feature is required
for distinguishing atheism from agnosticism simpliciter (the view that God’s
existence and non-existence is equally likely).

What the two views have in common and what marks them
out as distinct from agnosticism simpliciter is that both share the view that the
God of monotheism is perceived as being an improbable thing to exist. The core dispute between the two views is
over whether the perceived improbability of such a God existing entails that
the person should believe that such an entity does not exist or whether the
perceived improbability of such a God existing entails that one should simply
doubt that such a God existed and suspend belief on the matter.

Given that the central dispute between atheists over the
definition of atheism involves whether a person should believe God does not
exist or suspend belief on the matter it will be worth sketching out an outline
of what beliefs are. In so doing we may belay some confusion.

What are Beliefs?

Since the definitions of atheism involve the term
‘belief’, it will be useful to clarify some central notions that surround the
concept of belief. The term "belief" is used in philosophy to refer
to the attitude we have whenever we take something to be the case. In this
sense, the term is used very widely and covers what we may call ‘G. E. Moore
beliefs’. These are the things that we take for granted and feel pretty certain
about during our everyday interaction with the world, such as “I have hands”,
“this is a table,” and so forth. The term is also used to cover the more
speculative aspects, such as “God exists”, “Intelligent life on other planets
exists”, and so forth.

Attitude and Content

It is important to distinguish the psychological
attitude of belief from the content of what is believed. The psychological
attitude of belief is an autobiographical statement; it tells you about some
particular person’s psychological state. It is typically reported by someone
saying “I believe that God exists”. In contrast, the content of belief is
what the person takes to be true; it is about an actual or possible state of
affairs in the world, e.g., “God exists”. To illustrate this distinction,
consider a world in which no God exists, and a person who asserts the
following:

I believe that God exists.

If we are focusing on the content of what the person
believes, then we would be focusing on the proposition that God exists. Since,
for the sake argument, we are in a world without God, the claim is false. If
this were a world in which God existed, the proposition would be true. However,
if we are considering the statement as an autobiographical remark about what
the person believes then, so long as the person is speaking clearly, the claim
is true, since that statement reflects what they believe. Confusion can arise
when people use the above form of expression as ellipsis for the proposition
“God exists”, only expressed with some degree of doubt, rather than as an
autobiographical remark.

It is important to get clear on the distinction
between belief as attitude and belief as content, because some atheists can
mistakenly think that, if they reject the claim (belief as content) that God
exists, they have said nothing about whether they believe that God does not
exist. They have, since to reject the claim God exists is to represent the world
as if God did not exist. Consider someone who rejects the claim that his son is
alive. Someone who rejects this claim is representing his son as being dead,
since there is no intermittent state of being between being alive and dead.
This is why the phrase,

I
don’t believe that God exists

Is not a good indicator of whether the person rejects
the claims of the theist or not. Strictly speaking, this tells us nothing about
whether the person rejects what the person, who asserts that God exists, claims
to be true. The one lacks a belief that the other one has. The
problem is further confounded by such phrases as “I don’t believe” being
elliptical for “I think that is false”.

Consider the scenario whereby someone believes that
Elvis is not dead and they ask you whether you believe that Elvis is still
alive. You may reply that

I
don’t believe Elvis is still alive

If we take this literally it indicates that you lack the
belief that Elvis is still alive but does not indicate that you think Elvis is
dead or that the person who thinks Elvis is still alive has a false belief.
However, I think that many people treat the above expression as an ellipsis for
the thought that Elvis is dead in the same way that many people ay treat the
expression “I don’t believe that God exists” as ellipsis for “I believe that God
does not exist.”

It is important to note that if you construe the claim
“I believe that God exists” as an autobiographical remark, then it is
impossible to reject this claim (think that it is false), without thinking that
the person is mistaken about what they believe. You cannot reject someone
else’s autobiographical remark by citing an autobiographical remark of your own,
just as you cannot reject my claim that I ate marmalade on toast this morning
by citing your skipping breakfast. Similarly to reject the claim that God
exists is not to lack a belief on the matter (which tells us nothing about
whether you believe God exists or not) but to think that God does not
exist.

However, there is another sense of reject, which is to
reject an invitation to share the belief that someone else has, without making
any kind of judgment about whether the belief is true or false. Consider being
asked whether a defendant in court is guilty of a certain crime. We may be invited to consider that the defendent is guilty by the prosecution but reject this invitation. We may also reject the invitation to view the defendent as not guilty. In this sense of
reject, we simply reject what we are being invited to believe. However, in such cases we naturally refuse to believe the defendent is guilty or not guilty when there is insufficient evidence either way so the defendent has an equal chance of being either. This is not the case with atheism - the atheist does not think that God is as equally likely to exist as not exist even on the atheism as a lack of belief model.

The use of "I don't believe that" is often unclear.

These two senses of reject are often confused.

The Arguments for Atheism

As mentioned, agnostics have tended to distance
themselves from atheists on the grounds that agnostics treat religious claims
as being plausible claims that could equally be true or false, like betting on
a coin that could land heads or tails, whereas many atheists tend to denigrate
agnostics and, in so doing, reveal their belief that the existence of God is
highly unlikely rather then equiprobable. There clearly is a difference
between someone who regards the existence of God as plausible but is undecided
on the matter (and who does not see themselves as being an atheist), and
someone who regards the existence of God as utterly implausible and thinks that
people should not believe this.

The Tea Pot Analogy

If atheists focus only on perceptible evidence as
reasons for belief or disbelief, then they may be led into an uncomfortable
position whereby there are no reasons to believe God exists, or to believe that
God does not exist. If there is no reason to believe or disbelieve then atheism
will look indistinguishable from agnosticism. On the other hand if atheism is
to be distinct from agnosticism some reason is required for claiming that the
existence of God is improbable (more likely to not exist than exist).

An oft used analogy to reject such impartiality, with
regards to belief in God, is the tea pot analogy - the idea that belief in God
is analogous to the hypothesis that there is a tea pot that is in orbit between
Earth and Mars. If the hypothesis is careful to state that tea pot is so small
as to avoid detection by even our most powerful telescopes then the hypothesis
would not be able to be falsified. However even though the assertion could not
be disproved this should not lead us to suspend judgment on the matter. Instead
we should doubt whether there is such a tea pot in orbit.

That
is to say, given two hypothesis:

A:
There is a tea pot in orbit around the Sun.

B: There is no tea pot in orbit around the Sun.

The latter (B) is
vastly more probable than the former and, as such, we should doubt whether A is
true. However in doubting whether A is
true we need not affirm that B is true. We may doubt both but not to the same
degree which is just to say that we think one hypothesis is more likely than
the other.

Further, since there is no more evidence for there being
a tea pot in orbit around the Sun, than there is for there being a God, we
should similarly doubt the hypothesis that God exists. We may also go on and accept
the hypothesis that there is no such God if we are strong atheists.

There are important disanalogies between the tea pot and
God – namely that the tea pot is open to potential verification and does not
play a role in explaining anything of significance in the universe. The God of
theism, by contrast, is posited as an explanation of the physical universe and
why it has the form it has, including containing humans. Since the God of
theism is posited as an explanation for certain features of the natural world
these features are said to constitute evidence for the existence of the God of
theism. In contrast there is no evidence for the existence of the tea pot since
the tea pot does not explain any features of the natural world.

However, despite these differences the basic principle
remains the same: given two hypothesis, we should reject the most implausible
and accept the most plausible one. That is to say between the competing
hypothesis:

A: The features of the natural world x,y,z are best
explained by a supernatural God.

B: The features of the natural world x,y,z are best
explained by natural properties.

We should doubt A far more than we should doubt B
because B is far more probable than A. That is to say we should all be atheists in the weak sense of the term. Of course if we go on to think that B is
true then we will be entitled to think that A is false with the same degree of
certainty (unless we are in some degree of doubt about the entailment relation)
that we think B is true since the truth of B entails the falsity of A. That is to say we will be strong atheists.

From the above we can see that the strength of atheism increases as does the extent of scientific explanations of the universe.

How Not to
Argue for atheism as Non-Belief

Many atheists claim to simply lack a belief
in God rather than actively disbelieve in the existence of God. This is a
legitimate position to take when considering a hypothesis that we regard as possible
to be true but unlikely to be true. However those most vocal in arguing that
atheism is a position of non-belief also simultaneously claim that the
existence of God is an outlandish thing to believe in, as outlandish as belief
in fairies or other mythical creatures.

Here is the write Paula Kirby describing such a view:

Atheism is not in itself a belief. Few atheists would be so bold
as to declare the existence of any god at all utterly impossible. Atheism
is, quite simply, the position that it is absurd to believe in, much less
worship, a deity for which no valid evidence has been presented.

1: These two claim, the suspension of belief, and the
belief that something is outlandish or ridiculous to believe in do not sit
comfortably together. As Julian Baggini observes, if we take some claim to be
outlandish and incredible, we naturally disbelieve such a thing
(think that such a claim is false), rather than suspend belief:

Who
seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope
is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn
me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good
reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we
don't just suspend judgement. (Baggini very short introduction to atheism
p.35)

There are good reasons for thinking that the suspension
of belief is not something that can be brought under the will or conscious
control, but instead belief formation is largely an automatic process, i.e.,
try believing that there is an elephant in the room, or that other people do
not exist, or that there are invisible people living in your coat pocket. We
may entertain these ideas, but we do not affirm them as true, and such ideas do
not guide our lives. If so then belief formation is not something we choose; it
is a largely automatic process that depends on what we take to be the case. If
something is highly likely, we believe it to be true and, if it is extremely
unlikely, as in the example of the Pope being a robot, we believe it to be
false.

There is no reason to think that the author, Paula Kirby,
or anyone else is capable of suspending judgment on things that they are not
absolutely certain of, e.g., that people read The Hibernia Times or Washington
Post then we have reason to believe that people can be mistaken about the
principles that guide how they acquire
their beliefs. This means that they have the belief that their beliefs are
guided by a principle (described in A) when their beliefs are not in fact
guided by any such principle.

2: Many atheists represent religious belief as analogous
to belief in fictional entities, for which there is no evidence of their
existence. However, the attitude that most people have towards fictional
entities is, as the name suggests, one of disbelief or belief in their
non-existence. There is evidence to suggest that the attitudes we have to
things is influenced by association such that, if we associate religion with
fictional entities, we will think that religion consists of fictional entities,
i.e., entities that do not exist. So, far from suspending belief on the matter,
such atheists are likely to believe such entities do not exist.

This raises the question:

How can atheists, or anyone else for that matter, be
deceived or mistaken, so that they deny having the (negative) beliefs that they
actually have?

Motivated Misconceptions

When we search for information about the world or
ourselves, our preferences for what we want the world or ourselves to be like
influence where our attention is focused. People tend to be more critical about
what they do not want to believe, and more accepting of information that fits
what they want to believe. Given that there are a host of advantages to
portraying oneself as lacking in belief, it is not surprising that many
atheists like to represent themselves as holding this position, even when
there is good evidence available that this position does not capture what they
believe.

1: Avoidance of common characteristics

Atheism has grown in popularity in recent years and, as
it has done so, it has taken on something of a group identity that sets itself
as opposed to theism. Whilst it is true to say that atheism is opposed to
theism in the strict logical sense – theism is the belief that God exists,
whereas atheism denies this or asserts its opposite - modern atheism seems to
have opposed itself to a host of traits that are associated with religious
belief, but which do not form any essential part of an atheistic world
view.

Theists typically believe in an objective morality that
isbound up with God, believe in souls, and that revelation is a way of knowing
about the world. Such a view is common to the Abrahamic religions. In contrast,
atheists are often accused of lacking a belief in objective morality, only
believing in physical things, and that science is the only way to know about
the world. These things do not logically follow from atheism, and there seems
little reason why atheists should have these other beliefs, although it appears
that, among the folk, many do endorse the opposite set of traits from theists. It
may be that, in wanting to distance themselves from theists, atheists are more
likely to endorse the opposite set of traits that theists endorse.

Two attributes that are commonly associated with
religion are "belief" and "faith". If atheists want to
distance themselves from theists, they may be motivated to avoid admitting that
their position is associated with belief, or any element of faith. One way of maintaining
a distinct identity from theists is to deny that they have any of the same
characteristics, including denying that they have a belief on the question of
God’s existence.

2 Avoidance of the burden of proof

There are conversational norms whereby a person who
asserts some claim, whether it be that God exists, or whether it is the
opposite claim that God does not exist, has accepted the burden of proof to
explain and justify their position. If atheists can pretend that they lack a
belief or lack a position on the topic, then they can avoid the burden of
proof. Since atheism is a popular movement, many atheists are likely to be
unfamiliar and unskilled in justifying their position. Hence, once would expect
them to be motivated to avoid adopting the burden of proof. The problem with
pretending to have no position on this topic is that our behavior often reveals
what we really think, more than our explicit denial of having any beliefs on
the topic.

3: Fear of being seen as dogmatic.

Atheists may not want to assert that God or gods do not
exist, or report to others their belief that there are no gods, because they
fear that they will be seen as dogmatic or mistaken. After all, if you assert
that there is no monster under the bed and there turns out to be one after all,
you will have been mistaken. However, there is no reason why someone who
believes that monsters do not exist, given the lack of evidence to date, should
be seen as dogmatic if they are willing to change their mind at a later date,
when the evidence changes. Not wanting to assert that you believe there are no
gods is compatible with believing that there are no gods.

Conclusion

There is a legitimate
distinction between atheism as the belief that God does not exist and the lack
of belief in God.

In order for this distinction to capture what
atheists actually believe underpins their lack of belief in God it needs to
make it clear that atheism is accompanied by the belief that the existence of
God less likely than its existence rather than equiprobable in order to
distinguish this from the more neutral agnostic (or agnostic simpliciter)
position.

Some atheists who perhaps
ironically most vigorously defend the atheism as non-belief position may see
theism as being so implausible that they actively disbelief rather than suspend
judgment. That is to say they have the beliefs that they deny having. Further
they may also have mistaken beliefs about the way that they acquire and reject beliefs.

There seems little reason for atheists to suspend belief
on matters they see as vastly implausible, as contrasted with rejecting such
claims as false or mistaken. However, one can reject such claims in a
non-dogmatic way. To adopt a non-dogmatic position, all one needs to do is
believe that God does not exist, coupled with the willingness to change your
mind should the evidence change, or with the acceptance that your belief could
be mistaken.

Since atheists reject or suspend judgment on the
claims of theists, it will be useful to quickly outline theistic positions with
regards to God. Theism is the view that a personal God that transcends the
natural world exists, or exists apart from the natural world. God of the
monotheistic religions is commonly characterized as a type of immaterial being,
who is the creator of the physical universe and everything in it, along with a
host of other attributes: powerful, good, loving, just etc. This is distinct
from pantheism, which is sometimes taken as an attitude of awe or reverence for
nature (and so indistinguishable from) atheism and, at other times, taken to be
the attributing of mind-like properties to nature as a whole, e.g., a
consciousness of the biosphere which is a view that I shall not discuss here.

Philosophers
who defend theism often claim that the attributes of God are used in a
metaphorical, analogical, symbolic or non-literal sense. In contrast,
non-philosophers tend to view these attributes of God in literal terms, often
being described as believing in an anthropomorphic God. There are also
differences in terms of how creation is understood, for instance, creation can
be understood in a temporal sense in which God is supposed to have made the
universe, before which it did not exist, and a non-temporal sense in which the
universe is supposedly dependent on God sustaining it, and molding its form, so
that it is suitable for intelligent life. These two views are often combined,
but the latter view is sufficient to avoid the claim that theism is false if
matter existed foreternity. However, central to the God of monotheism is the belief that a
supernatural deity exists and explains (in the sense of is causally responsible
for) some features of the world, e.g., the existence (or continued existence)
of the physical universe, the fine tuning of the cosmological constants, and human
existence.

[2]The
proposition “God exists is false” has the same truth conditions as the
proposition “God does not exist”. Whether these two propositions express the
same thought depends on how thoughts are to be carved up i.e., whether they are
carved up objectively in terms of the state of affairs they denote or whether
they are carved up subjectively in terms of the attitude that the speaker has
towards them. Depending on which view one takes, one will say that these
express the same thought in different ways, or that these express different
thoughts about the same state of affairs.

[3]What is
natural is defined in terms of whatever properties pull their weight in the empirical
(natural) sciences. They are the properties that belong to the natural sciences
and belong there because of their role in explaining features of the observable
universe but they need not themselves be observable.

miscellaneous

Atheism and Etymology

It is sometimes argued by atheists that the etymology of
atheism is from the Greek meaning “without God”. Since the theist believes that
God exists, the atheist is someone who is without the belief that God exists.
This argument has two problems.

The first is that it commits the fallacy of etymology,
which is a genetic fallacy that describes someone who claims, erroneously, that
the historical meaning of a word or phrase tells us what its actual present-day
meaning is or ought to be. This is a linguistic misconception that confuses the
origins of the term’s meaning with its current meaning. For instance, if all we
knew about the term was its etymology, we would be very confused as to what
someone who ordered Tagliatelle was ordering (little cut ones).

The second is that, we are meant to take the origin of a
term as a guide to its current meaning, and so conclude that atheism means the
lack of belief. However we cannot take the term as a guide to its current
meaning without knowing how the current term is used and whether such usage is
accurate. As I have argued above, those most vocal in arguing that atheism is
non-belief actually have the beliefs they deny having so this actually
undermines the argument that atheism is the position of non-belief.
Nevertheless a case can be made for atheism as the position of non-belief so
long as it is coupled by the claim that the existence of God is less likely
than Gods existence and does not stray over into making the existence of God
into something manifestly implausible.

The You Cannot prove a Negative Argument

There is a popular view that a person cannot prove a
negative, by which is meant that you cannot prove that something does not
exist. You can only prove what exists. This claim does not stand up to a
moment’s scrutiny. For instance, consider someone telling you that you cannot
prove that an elephant is not on your head. Clearly they have lost their
marbles. The reason you can prove a negative, i.e., prove something does not
exist, is because the existence of things leaves a trace in the world,
e.g., the reason that an elephant has not stepped in my butter is because the
butter is still intact. If an elephant had stepped in my butter, or snuck into
my living room, the world would be altered in a certain way.

However, the non-existence of God may be thought of as
more difficult to prove and it is, for here there is plenty of evidence of
non-existence, but not the same kind of certainty regarding elephants walking
in your butter. The claims are analogous only in that the existence of
elephants, like the existence of God, is expected to leave certain imprints on
the world. If God created the world so that humans could come into existence,
then we would expect that we would be here pretty much straightaway (after all,
an omnipotent being cannot fail to bring about what it intends). However,
unbeknown to people who were wondering what the origins of the universe and
humans were two thousand years ago, the universe is actually very old, and
human life is comparatively recent. So the evidence suggests that the universe
was not made by an omnipotent being who intended us to come about. And it gets
worse; we now know that the sun's energy is expanding, so that life on earth
will eventually be destroyed and this looks like a natural process that all
inhabitable planets go through. So, far from the universe appearing made fit
for intelligent life, it looks incredibly hostile to any prolonged existence.
This is the footprint in the butter that gives us reason to say that the
universe was not designed by any omnipotent God for the purpose of intelligent
life. It is not a proof but it is a good reason for rejecting belief in God.

Assumptions and Beliefs

There are differences between what we believe and what
we assume to be true. For present purposes, this distinction is typically
invoked to describe how those testing a hypothesis assume that the hypothesis
is true, but are not committed to believing that the hypothesis is true, as
evidenced by their continual testing of the hypothesis. Those who invoke the
distinction between what we assume to be true and what we believe to be true,
also claim that, when we cease testing, as we have done regarding homeopathies
potency, or regarding fairies and unicorns, we indicate our belief that such
things are non-existent.

Humanists4Science

Join Humanists4Science

Join Humanists4Science

Follow Humanists4Science on Twitter

About Humanists4Science (Hum4Sci)

Humanists4Science (H4S) Mission "To promote, within the humanist community, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society."

H4S Vision "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

H4S isfor humanists with an active interest in science.We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts.

H4S take a naturalistic view and believe, like 62% of the UK population, that science, the scientific method & other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe.

Since 2008 H4S members have discussed many Humanist-Science topics in our Yahoo Group.

Jim Al-Khalili (BHA President)

Prof. Jim Al-Khalili - 11TH BHA President - On Scientific Method

'I have a rational unshakeable conviction that our universe is understandable, that mysteries are only mysteries because we have yet to figure out, the almost always logical answers. For me there is simply no room, no need, for a supernatural divine being to fill in the gaps in our understanding. We’ll get there, we’ll fill in those gaps with objective scientific truths: [with] answers that aren't subjective, because of cultural or historical whims or personal biases, but because of empirically testable and reproducible truths. We may not get the full picture, we may never get the full picture, but science allows us to get ever closer.’ Jim Al-Khalili, BHA AGM 2013

"A lot of people say science is just one way of looking at the world, at reality, and poets and musicians and, of course, people of faith, have said there are other ways. I don't buy that. For me there is an objective reality that is there and real. For a theoretical physicist who's trained in thinking about quantum mechanics, which involves the idea that by observing something you alter its nature, you have to have some sort of working definitions of reality"Jim Al-Khalili in New Humanist magazine Mar Apr 2013

Lord Taverne

Dick Taverne

Lord Taverne

Science depends on reason and regard for evidence. For me, the scientific approach lies at the heart of humanism as well as atheism. We all accept that science has made us healthier and wealthier. What has been seldom acknowledged or realised is that since the Enlightenment, which it helped to bring about, science has played an essential part in making us more civilised.

Science is the enemy of autocracy because it replaces claims to truth based on authority with those based on evidence and because it depends on the criticism of established ideas. Scientific knowledge is the enemy of dogma and ideologies and makes us more tolerant because it is tentative and provisional and does not deal in certainties. It is the most effective way of learning about the physical world and therefore erodes superstition, ignorance and prejudice, which have been causes of the denial of human rights throughout history. Science is also the enemy of narrow nationalism and tribalism and, like the arts, is one of the activities in this world that is not motivated by greed.

What can compare, for example, with the recent achievement of the Large Hadron Collider, a venture of collaboration by 10,000 scientists and engineers from 113 countries, free from bureaucratic and political interference? Those people put aside all national, political, religious and cultural differences in pursuit of truth and for the one purpose of exploring and understanding the natural world.

Without the contribution of science, which is, in my view, the rock on which atheism and humanism are built, we would be less inclined to be critical, tolerant and understanding and more prone to prejudice, bigotry and tribalism. We would be a less civilised society.

David Papineau on Materialism

'Our world is a fully material world. We don’t need to go outside Physics to understand the constitution of the Universe. Anything non-material would be epiphenomena and could never have any effect on the material world.' David Papineau (video) on Materialism

Richard Dawkins (BHA Vice-President) on Scientific Method

'Scientific method is a system whereby working assumptions may be falsified by recourse to reason and evidence.' (Photo: Chris Street, 2006)

Peter Atkins (BHA Distinguished Supporter) on Scientific Method

'The scientific method is the only reliable method of achieving knowledge. It displaces ignorance without destroying wonder.'

'Science can deal with all the serious questions that have troubled mankind for millennia' Peter Atkins

'My own faith, my scientific faith, is that there is nothing that the scientific method cannot illuminate and elucidate." Peter Atkins

Stephen Fry (BHA Distinguished Supporter) on Scientific Method

'Reason is almost akin to superstition, ... reason must be tested, testing is the very basis of science.'

Matt Ridley (BHA Distinguished Supporter) on Scientific Method

'Science is not a catalogue of facts, but a search for new mysteries. Science increases the store of wonder and mystery in the world; it does not erode it.'

Stephen Law (BHA Distinguished Supporter) on Scientific Method

'Empirical science is possibly the only tool ... for understanding the world around us'.

Lewis Wolpert (BHA Vice President) on Scientific Method

'Science is the best way to understand the world, for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry.'

Harry Kroto (BHA Distinguished Supporter) on Scientific Method

'The methods of science are manifestly effective, having made massive humanitarian contributions to society. It is this very effectiveness which the purveyors of mystical philosophies attack, because they recognise in it the chief threat to the belief-based source of their power and financial reward.'